If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Judge rules that police in New York are under no duty to stop a madman from slicing you into fillets   (opposingviews.com) divider line 167
    More: Asinine, Judges' Rules, New York, Margaret Chan, dereliction of duty, supreme court justices, Gothamist  
•       •       •

7998 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jul 2013 at 10:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



167 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-31 04:59:49 PM  
The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.
 
2013-07-31 05:09:49 PM  
Police representatives argued that they had no "special duty" to intervene

So therefore citizens have no obligation to assist an officer in distress then?
 
2013-07-31 06:26:01 PM  
And they are following precedent in doing so.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales and Warren v. DC
 
2013-07-31 08:30:55 PM  

Dimensio: The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.


No gun can ever protect the perpetually paranoid and scared amongst us
 
2013-07-31 08:42:54 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Dimensio: The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.

No gun can ever protect the perpetually paranoid and scared amongst us


Gun ban advocates rarely possess firearms.
 
2013-07-31 08:46:49 PM  

Dimensio: Peter von Nostrand: Dimensio: The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.

No gun can ever protect the perpetually paranoid and scared amongst us

Gun ban advocates rarely possess firearms.


Yes, it's the people that don't own guns and/or want some restrictions on them that are paranoid
 
2013-07-31 08:49:26 PM  
What exactly is their duty then?

/to protect their own
//and serve themselves?
 
2013-07-31 08:54:44 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Dimensio: The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.

No gun can ever protect the perpetually paranoid and scared amongst us


No, but it can shoot the motherfarker that is stabbing you when the cops won't respond.
 
2013-07-31 08:59:38 PM  
Give them some lip and see how fast they intervene to Taser your ass.
 
2013-07-31 09:17:46 PM  
A crime was being committed, surely that falls under their job description.  I wonder what a non-biased article would have looked like.
 
2013-07-31 09:43:06 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: A crime was being committed, surely that falls under their job description.  I wonder what a non-biased article would have looked like.


A non-biased article would merely have reported upon the outcome of the trial, and the basis for the ruling that police are under no duty to protect individual citizens and thus their failure to provide any protection to anyone not in their custody is not legally actionable.

Police may, if they wish, watch a violent crime occur without intervening.
 
2013-07-31 09:44:27 PM  

basemetal: What exactly is their duty then?

/to protect their own
//and serve themselves?


To protect and serve the society at large. Maybe they should write that last part a little bigger on the fenders.

You are but a single blade of grass on the lawn of society. You don't matter as an individual. Sure, the cops will pursue and arrest your murderer but only at a pace of their own convenience.


Look at what happened when they were chasing that Dorner guy around a few months ago. They shot the shiat out anything that almost looked like Dorner's vehicle because they were scared andif they had to blast a few innocent grandmothers delivering newspapers to protect themselves that was just the kind of sacrifice they were prepared to make in the line of duty. The police have militarized to the point of expected collateral damage as part of every day business. Do think for an instant that it was an LAPD thing.


Also when your house catches fire the fire dept only shows up to put it out so as to save the houses NEXT TO IT. Chances are that the bucket boys will wreck your house worse than the fire while putting it out.


/Sleep tight citizen
 
2013-07-31 09:53:17 PM  

Lsherm: Peter von Nostrand: Dimensio: The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.

No gun can ever protect the perpetually paranoid and scared amongst us

No, but it can shoot the motherfarker that is stabbing you when the cops won't respond.


So guns always protect people. Good point. Now that I've been reassured that guns always protect people, I say arm everyone, everywhere. In fact, I'd bet that there hasn't been one crime committed in Oklahoma since they passed open carry
 
2013-07-31 10:13:16 PM  
You know, I have yet to see one person in Okla carry openly.

/and I live in a prime area for people to do it.
 
2013-07-31 10:19:44 PM  
Peter von Nostrand:

So guns always protect people. Good point. Now that I've been reassured that guns always protect people, I say arm everyone, everywhere. In fact, I'd bet that there hasn't been one crime committed in Oklahoma since they passed open carry

At the very least, there should be a whole bunch of dead criminals lying around, no longer able to prey on the weak and hapless!
 
2013-07-31 10:26:30 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Lsherm: Peter von Nostrand: Dimensio: The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.

No gun can ever protect the perpetually paranoid and scared amongst us

No, but it can shoot the motherfarker that is stabbing you when the cops won't respond.

So guns always protect people. Good point. Now that I've been reassured that guns always protect people, I say arm everyone, everywhere. In fact, I'd bet that there hasn't been one crime committed in Oklahoma since they passed open carry


Son, there's an art to trolling.  Doubling down on a logical fallacy isn't it.
 
2013-07-31 10:28:41 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Peter von Nostrand:

So guns always protect people. Good point. Now that I've been reassured that guns always protect people, I say arm everyone, everywhere. In fact, I'd bet that there hasn't been one crime committed in Oklahoma since they passed open carry

At the very least, there should be a whole bunch of dead criminals lying around, no longer able to prey on the weak and hapless!


Running out of hap is the worst.
 
2013-07-31 10:34:04 PM  
The Supremes decided this years ago: the police are under no obligation whatsoever to EVAR come to your aid.

IOW they are there to provide security theater, generate revenue for local/State government and keep the darkies on their side of the tracks.

Prove me wrong.
 
2013-07-31 10:36:45 PM  
Kitty Genovese is a prime reason for carrying.
Old school crime victim.
 
2013-07-31 10:37:16 PM  
To Protect and Serve

That's one down. They've been kind of iffy on that last one for a long time too.
 
2013-07-31 10:37:58 PM  

Dimensio: Peter von Nostrand: Dimensio: The headline and the story cannot be accurate. I have been assured that civilians should not be permitted to carry firearms because they should be relying upon police for protection against attackers.

No gun can ever protect the perpetually paranoid and scared amongst us

Gun ban advocates rarely possess firearms.


Dianne Feinstien has had a concealed weapon permit since the late 70's for her own protection, funnily enough when she orchestrated the Californian gun bans she exempted herself and other politicians. In New York politicians and ex-police officers are still allowed access to the dreaded "assault weapons" unlike us untermensch.
 
2013-07-31 10:38:21 PM  
Gelman stabbed Joseph Lozito in the face, neck, hands and head on an uptown 3 train in February 2011, after fatally stabbing four people and injuring three others in a 28-hour period. Lozito, a father of two and an avid martial arts fan, was able to tackle Gelman and hold him down, and Gelman was eventually arrested by the transit officers. Lozito sued the city, arguing that the police officers had locked themselves in the conductor's car and failed to come to his aid in time.

I wasn't there but that report does not look good.

Here we are the police are bullies, and have no responsibility to put themselves in harms way if there is a citizen at risk of crazed attacker.

But they do have there mission to make a non-quota of arrests every night (1) per Schoolcraft in the 81'st, and pat down people of color in order to find marjuana, and conduct surveillance (2) outside of state lines. This is specifically the NYPD we are talking about here.

The NYPD has completely lost it's sense of mission. Fire the lot and start the fark over.

1Link
2Link
 
2013-07-31 10:38:21 PM  

Lsherm:


Son, there's an a art to trolling. .


Fixed
 
2013-07-31 10:38:47 PM  
In some states, it is illegal for doctors and other other off-duty medical personnel that happen to pass by people in need of assistance and not render whatever aid they can.
 
2013-07-31 10:38:53 PM  
This is in fact an old legal doctrine - you generally cannot sue the police, or the city, because you argue that they "didn't do their jobs."  Same applies to the fire department.  The original purpose behind the law is that many times municipal resources will be spread thin and/or civil servants will have to make judgement calls that end up either going south.  The classic hypo is when 1 cop has to respond to two calls.  If he responds to Alice, and Bob gets robbed Bob  will sue, and if he response to Bob and Alice gets robbed, Alice will sue.

As first responders often face kobayashi maru type scenarios,  to be able to sue the city for what they don't do, a plaintiff must show that they acted willfully.  Thus if a firefighter doesn't put out your fire because he doesn't think it is safe, or is trying to put out another fire, no suit.  But if your ex-bf the firefighter laughs while your house goes up and says revenge is sweet, sue away.

Here the article says the man in question took out a knife-nut while the police were hiding in the conductor's area.  My gut says it was more the Police were trying a strategy, dumb tho it may have been , and captain martial arts decided to take out the bad guy himself.  And got hurt.  and then sued.
 
2013-07-31 10:39:14 PM  
Dimensio:Police may, if they wish, watch a violent crime occur without intervening.

On the other hand, it is a crime for a civilian to refuse to protect an Officer from a violent crime if ordered.

Even though we don't get the body armor, weapons, training, and pay that Officers get.
 
2013-07-31 10:39:14 PM  
came here expecting a "fail to show up case "

found a case of "no balls"

Lozito sued the city, arguing that the police officers had
locked themselves in the conductor's car and http://gothamist.com/2011/03/23/man_stabbed_during_madmans_rampage.ph p">failed to come to his aid in time.
 
2013-07-31 10:39:46 PM  
Stone Meadow:  keep the darkies on their side of the tracks.

What if they want a bag of skittles and a beverage of choice from this side of the tracks?
 
2013-07-31 10:40:27 PM  
So, has New York passed a "you have to roll up into a ball and take it" law yet?
 
2013-07-31 10:40:29 PM  
What do you expect? NY politicians don't want police officers to do police work.
 
2013-07-31 10:41:28 PM  

Dimensio: I_Am_Weasel: A crime was being committed, surely that falls under their job description.  I wonder what a non-biased article would have looked like.

A non-biased article would merely have reported upon the outcome of the trial, and the basis for the ruling that police are under no duty to protect individual citizens and thus their failure to provide any protection to anyone not in their custody is not legally actionable.

Police may, if they wish, watch a violent crime occur without intervening.


And for any that do so and allow innocent civilians to come to harm, I hope they choke on a bag of rusty razor blades.
 
2013-07-31 10:41:41 PM  
Under legal obligation or not, locking themselves in the conductor's cabin is rather unbecoming. Medal of bravery not yours.
 
2013-07-31 10:42:11 PM  

GUTSU: Dianne Feinstien has had a concealed weapon permit since the late 70's for her own protection, funnily enough when she orchestrated the Californian gun bans she exempted herself and other politicians. In New York politicians and ex-police officers are still allowed access to the dreaded "assault weapons" unlike us untermensch.


I hate to bust your "liberal hypocrite" rant but legislatures at every level exempt themselves from many of the laws they pass.
 
2013-07-31 10:42:33 PM  

But you do have a duty to keep seven or fewer rounds in your magazine.


/assuming you can get a permit.

/All those gang members are packing, so it can't be too hard.

 
2013-07-31 10:42:47 PM  
The duties of a police officer are to protect and serve - unless they don't feel like it, apparently. A Manhattan Supreme Court Justice has ruled that the City of New York has no legal obligation to protect its citizens, even if armed police are present at the scene of a dangerous incident.

So if i read TFA right, the policemen locked themselves in another car when they saw the crazed knife wielding psycho and have no duty to protect citizens? Hmmmm..something is fishy here. We aren't getting the whole story, or the reporter is a liberal.
 
2013-07-31 10:42:56 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: In some states, it is illegal for doctors and other other off-duty medical personnel that happen to pass by people in need of assistance and not render whatever aid they can.


Which states?
 
2013-07-31 10:43:59 PM  
Well, they were transit cops. These are the guys who graduate at the bottom of their academy class, so i never expect much from them.
 
2013-07-31 10:44:16 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: So if i read TFA right, the policemen locked themselves in another car when they saw the crazed knife wielding psycho and have no duty to protect citizens? Hmmmm..something is fishy here. We aren't getting the whole story, or the reporter is a liberal.


I thought your first and only duty as an Officer was to come home alive?
 
2013-07-31 10:44:18 PM  
This article, from right after the attack and featuring statements from the Plaintiff in TFA, indicates the police boarded the train behind the assailant and were closing in on him while he was pounding on the conductor's car.  The Crazy guy started shouting that tghe police had to let him in, then when he saw the two cops he started to attack the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff took him out before the police could get there.

Thus, sounds much more like:
(1) the police were closing in on a nutjob who had already killed a bunch of people that day, probably hoping not to spook him into killing again,
(2) he spooked anyway,
(3) "hero citizen" takes out killer.
(4) "hero citizen" then sues cops for not being fast enough.  .
 
2013-07-31 10:44:56 PM  
 
2013-07-31 10:45:37 PM  
If the police are not present and are not aware that someone is being attacked then how can they be expected to protect you?  That is what this case is about.  The judge did NOT rule that if the police witness a crime in progress that they can just stand there whistling Dixie.
 
2013-07-31 10:45:55 PM  

Teiritzamna: This article, from right after the attack and featuring statements from the Plaintiff in TFA, indicates the police boarded the train behind the assailant and were closing in on him while he was pounding on the conductor's car.  The Crazy guy started shouting that tghe police had to let him in, then when he saw the two cops he started to attack the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff took him out before the police could get there.

Thus, sounds much more like:
(1) the police were closing in on a nutjob who had already killed a bunch of people that day, probably hoping not to spook him into killing again,
(2) he spooked anyway,
(3) "hero citizen" takes out killer.
(4) "hero citizen" then sues cops for not being fast enough.  .


You have a poor grasp of law. Please stop.
 
2013-07-31 10:46:46 PM  
LemSkroob
Well, they were transit cops. These are the guys who graduate at the bottom of their academy class, so i never expect much from them.


So these are the bottom feeding scum that wait for people to pick up a wallet and arrest them for not immediately handing it the next cop that walks by, or like to give $50 ticket for people that put their feet up on empty chairs.

Go figure.
 
2013-07-31 10:48:12 PM  
WTF so much for PROTECT and serve eh?
 
2013-07-31 10:48:52 PM  
Judge rules that police in New York are under no duty to stop a madman from slicing you into fillets

On the other hand, if they shoot you full of bullets because they got the address wrong for the drug raid...they were on duty, so it's cool.
 
2013-07-31 10:49:31 PM  
Duty is in the eye of the beholder.
 
2013-07-31 10:50:07 PM  

Mock26: If the police are not present and are not aware that someone is being attacked then how can they be expected to protect you?  That is what this case is about.  The judge did NOT rule that if the police witness a crime in progress that they can just stand there whistling Dixie.


The Officers were sufficiently aware of the attack to lock themselves in the conductor's cabin.
 
2013-07-31 10:50:35 PM  
Entirely consistent with past rulings.

Government's police are not there to protect you. They have no duty to protect you. They serve the institution of government.

Teiritzamna: Here the article says the man in question took out a knife-nut while the police were hiding in the conductor's area. My gut says it was more the Police were trying a strategy, dumb tho it may have been , and captain martial arts decided to take out the bad guy himself. And got hurt. and then sued.


You're quite unfamiliar with the story. The attacker had already murdered others and simply attacked this guy on the train after an attempt to impersonate a cop and gain access to the conductor failed. Once the victim successfully defended himself, the cop came out of the locked conductor's area and made the arrest. The cops then took full credit for the capture. The only thing the victim did to prompt being attacked was to be sitting by conductor's door which made him the first thing this psycho saw when his attempt to gain access failed. Also as the victim sat there bleeding profusely the cops dragged everything out preventing him from getting prompt medical attention.

I'll leave it your search engine skills to dig up the interviews and stories on it.
 
2013-07-31 10:51:00 PM  

catpuncher: You have a poor grasp of law


asplain
 
2013-07-31 10:51:28 PM  
Marcus Aurelius

Police representatives argued that they had no "special duty" to intervene

So therefore citizens have no obligation to assist an officer in distress then?

I sure as hell wouldn't. I don't care what anyone does to a cop.

ImpendingCynic

I hate to bust your "liberal hypocrite" rant but legislatures at every level exempt themselves from many of the laws they pass.
ROTFL... is there anything you won't excuse when it's a liberal doing it?
 
Displayed 50 of 167 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report